Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18274/MVIA
In the matter of an appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from an impoundment of a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 55.1 of the Act.
Between:
Richard Wilkinson
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Richard Wilkinson, Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Ian Sookram, Agent
Heard:
February 19, 2026
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Richard Wilkinson, appeals the 45-day impoundment of his 2014 Ford Escape SE motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).
2The appellant’s vehicle was impounded on February 2, 2026, after police found it being operated by the appellant’s son-in-law (G.D.T.), whose driver’s licence had been suspended following a Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (“Criminal Code”). Specifically, G.D.T. was convicted of failing to remain at an accident on November 24, 2025. The parties do not dispute the fact that the vehicle was being driven by G.D.T. at the time of the impoundment.
3Subsection 55.1(1) of the Act allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that the driver’s licence of the person who is driving a vehicle is under suspension at the time. As a result of discovering that G.D.T.’s licence was under suspension until November 24, 2026, police impounded the vehicle pursuant to s. 55.1(1) of the Act.
4The appellant filed his appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on February 5, 2026. The appellant appeals the impoundment pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
ISSUE
5The onus of proving this ground of appeal rests with the appellant. To succeed in his appeal, the appellant must establish that he suffered exceptional hardship, as a result of the impoundment, on a balance of probabilities.
RESULT
6Having considered the parties’ evidence and submissions, I find that the appellant has demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that he will suffer exceptional hardship as a result of the impoundment.
7I therefore set aside the impoundment and order that the vehicle be released to the appellant.
ANALYSIS
8It is undisputed between the parties that the appellant is the owner of the impounded vehicle, that G.D.T. was driving it at the time it was impounded, and that G.D.T.’s driver’s licence was under suspension. I am satisfied that the vehicle was lawfully detained and impounded under s. 55.1 of the Act.
Will the appellant experience exceptional hardship due to the impoundment?
9I find that the appellant has shown that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship for the reasons which follow.
10As a first step, s. 10(1) of O. Reg. 631/98 (“Regulation”) sets out the factors the Tribunal is to consider when determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. The first step under s. 10(1) is that the appellant must demonstrate there is no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle available. Subsection 10(4) sets out that to show this, an appellant must establish that there are no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle. Section 10(4) of the Regulation provides, as follows:
The owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.
11The appellant offered evidence to demonstrate that he has no reasonable alternative to the impounded motor vehicle.
12The appellant is a pensioner and lives in Carrying Place, Ontario. It is a remote community about half an hour from Picton, Ontario. He relies on his vehicle to attend doctor’s appointments, obtain essentials, and to run errands given that there is no public transit in the town. While there are cab services available, they are cost prohibitive for him to rely on and he has had to forego travel because of this.
13The appellant testified that he has various medical conditions which require numerous appointments. He has been able to reschedule some but others he has had to cancel. On rare occasions he has been able to secure a ride to his appointments, but his options are very limited. His girlfriend has a vehicle but she is currently caring for her aging mother in Oshawa, Ontario. He states that she is only home two times a week.
14The appellant also has an autistic grandson who he would occasionally transport to doctor’s appointments. He states that with the loss of the vehicle, this appointment may need to be rescheduled.
15Currently, the appellant has not had to refill any prescriptions but that is because they have not run out. Once that time comes, he is unsure how he will obtain his medication. He has been able to stock up on grocery for now.
16The appellant provided compelling arguments that his vehicle is vital, especially given the remote community he lives in and the fact that his doctor’s appointments, pharmacy, grocery stores, are all at a far distance from his home. He has made every effort to make adjustments to accommodate the temporary loss of his vehicle. However, he is still unable to attend certain appointments and meet other obligations that he normally would.
17As mentioned, the appellant is a pensioner on a limited income. He is unable to afford renting a vehicle for an extended period. He has no other family nearby. His daughter and son-in-law live approximately 45 minutes away. Neither are able to assist the appellant with alternate transportation at this time.
18I am satisfied that the appellant has explored other alternatives to his impounded vehicle. He appears to have minimal support around him and has resorted to cancelling one appointment with his eye surgeon due to the unavailability of his vehicle.
19I find the appellant has proven clearly on a balance of probabilities that he does not have any other vehicles available to him for the times that he requires them most. He has tried to get rides in the past or relied on his girlfriend, however, her ability to do so is very limited due to other familial obligations. The appellant has not been able to get around to run errands and attend appointments due to the lack of public transit. This leaves him with very limited options.
20I find that the appellant does not have any reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle. I am satisfied that he has considered and inquired into every reasonable option that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss, including renting a vehicle, getting rides and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.
21Having satisfied myself that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available to the appellant, I must now consider under s. 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Regulation whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person who is ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle, or a threat to the public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. I may also consider, under s. 10(2) and (3), financial or economic loss, or loss of employment, but only if the owner demonstrates that:
(a) no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available;
(b) the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting;
(c) the impact of the loss will be upon a person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; and
(d) the impact of the loss,
(i) will be upon a person other than the person whose driving while his or her driver’s licence was under suspension resulted in the impoundment of the motor vehicle, and
(ii) will not be a result of a loss by the suspended driver of the type set out in clause (2) (b), (c) or (d).
22The appellant states that he had no choice but to cancel an appointment with his eye doctor. While he can reschedule certain appointments, it may delay treatment or the renewal of prescriptions. I also note that he is on a fixed income and does not have the ability to explore other options to the impounded vehicle due to financial constraints.
23The appellant also states that he occasionally takes his grandson to doctor’s appointments, but did not discuss this at length, nor did he offer supporting evidence. While I placed some weight on this, I placed the majority of the weight on the appellant’s needed access for his own medical appointments.
24Overall, I find that the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle results in a threat to the health and safety of the appellant and others who rely on the vehicle and are ordinarily transported by the vehicle.
25I am satisfied that the appellant has demonstrated that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship under the Act.
ORDER
26For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s. 50.2(5) of the Act, I set aside the impoundment and order the respondent to release the vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: March 30, 2026